BEFORE THE HEARING BOARD
OF THE
ILLINOIS ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
AND
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION

In the Matter of:

DENNIS R. SCHUMACHER,

Attorney-Respondent,

No. 3124986.

Commission No. 07 CH 20

FILED - June 24, 2008

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and
Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney Wendy J. Muchman, pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 753(b), complains of Respondent Dennis R. Schumacher, who was
licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 5, 1979, and alleges that
Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into
disrepute:

COUNT I
(Battery - Sarah Day)

1. On or about April 29, 2005, Sarah R. Day (hereinafter
referred to as "Sarah") met with Respondent to determine whether Respondent
would agree to represent her in her pending dissolution of marriage matter,
In re Marriage of Sarah R. Day v. Donald E. Day, 05-D-19 pending in the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Ogle County, Illinois. Sarah's first attorney, Alan
Cargerman, had been recalled to the bench and had to file a motion to withdraw
as her counsel because he could not complete her case.

2. On May 4, 2005, Respondent agreed to represent Sarah in
the dissolution matter. At all times relevant there were issues of support of
the partie's one minor child, maintenance and property division. On May 10,
2005, Respondent filed a substitution of attorneys, substituting his appearance
for that of Cargerman.

3. At all times alleged in this count, Sarah had a part-time
job as a home health aid, and no extra funds to pay an attorney. Respondent
received from Cargerman, $1,253.00, representing the unused portion of Sarah's
previously paid retainer fee, which Sarah had originally borrowed from her
employer. In addition to those sums, Sarah had no resources with which to pay an
attorney. Further, Sarah's husband was not making any financial contribution for
child support, maintenance or any other matter.

4. At all times alleged in this count, Respondent had a
fiduciary duty to Sarah which required that he not abuse his position of
authority and trust, and that he place the best interests of his client above
his own self-interests.

5. On or about May 23, 2005, Respondent prepared and filed a
petition for temporary relied on behalf of Sarah in case no. 05 D 19. The
petition requested temporary child support and maintenance for Sarah, health
insurance for Sarah and the minor child, $75 toward family credit card debt, and
that Sarah receive custody of the child. On May 25, 2005, Respondent filed a
notice of motion scheduling the petition for temporary relief for hearing on
June 15, 2005 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Stephen Pemberton.

6. At some time on or about June 15, 2005, at the request of
Donald's attorney, the date for hearing on the petition for temporary relief was
continued to June 21, 2005.

7. On June 3, 2005, Sarah called Respondent to advise him
that she was concerned stating that her husband, Donald, was threatening and
stalking her. Respondent discussed with Sarah the possibility of an order or
protection.

8. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was a
criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-3, which provides, "Battery. (a) A
person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal
justification and by any means, (1) causes harm to an individual or (2) makes
physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual."

9. At some point prior to June 15, 2005, at Respondent's
request, a meeting was scheduled at his office with Sarah to discuss the
presentation of her petition for temporary relief.

10. On June 15, 2005, Respondent and Sarah met in his office.
Respondent asked Sarah to give him a hug. Sarah gave Respondent a hug. At that
point, Respondent proceeded to grab Sarah's buttocks, pull her toward him, stick
his tongue in her mouth, simulate the turning of her breasts and place her hand
outside his pants on his partially erect genitals, stating to her "see what
you've done." Sarah repeatedly stated to Respondent; "Okay that's enough"; but
he did not stop. Respondent said other things to Sarah including "You don't know
what you do to me"; and "Why don't you lay down on the floor right there?"

11. Sarah did not have the finances to hire another attorney
or take care of her minor child. She wanted to proceed to have her petition for
temporary relief heard and finalize her divorce. Respondent requested she return
the next morning, June 16, to finalize her financial affidavit.

12. On the morning of June 16, Sarah made two phone calls to
Respondent's office during which she reported to his paralegal, Gwen Farley, and
his secretary, Stephanie Wendt, what had occurred in Respondent's office on the
night of June 15. She advised Ms. Wendt that she wanted her case finished, but
she did not want to be alone in an office with Respondent. Wendt advised Sarah
that she would be certain Sarah did not have to be alone with Respondent.

13. Stephanie Wendt is married to Ken Wendt, who is an
employee of the Ogle County Sheriff's office. Stephanie told her husband about
her conversation with Sarah. On Saturday June 17, Ken went to Respondent's home
and apprised him of the statements Sarah had made to Respondent's office
personnel.

14. On June 21, 2005, Respondent withdrew from representation
of Sarah in her dissolution of marriage matter. No order was entered on the
petition for temporary relief nor was the dissolution matter concluded.

15. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent
has engaged in the following misconduct:

representing a client
if the representation of that client may be materially limited by
the lawyer's own interest in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

breach of fiduciary
duty;

overreaching the
attorney-client relationship;

committing a criminal
act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness
or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, in violation of Rule
8.4(a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, by
committing battery in violation of 720 ILCS 5/12-3;

conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

conduct which tends to
defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal
profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

COUNT II
(Battery - Leah Miller)

1. Prior to March 2, 2000, Respondent agreed to represent
Dirk Miller ("Dirk") in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. Dirk advised
Respondent that he was reluctant to divorce his wife, Leah Miller ("Leah"), but
acknowledged that Leah was determined to seek a dissolution of their marriage.
Leah intended to proceed pro-se in order to save money on attorney's fees and
because the Millers had agreed upon most of the issues relating to a
dissolution.

2. At all times alleged in this complaint, Respondent had a
fiduciary duty to Dirk which required that he not abuse his position of
authority and trust, and that he place the best interests of his client above
his own self-interests.

3. Prior to March 2, 2000, Respondent asked Dirk and Leah to
come to his office to discuss the details of the divorce. At that meeting, Leah
and Dirk discussed with Respondent the issues they had resolved. At the
conclusion of the meeting, Respondent advised Dirk that although he was
representing Dirk, part of his responsibility to Leah was to "counsel" her and
that he therefore required some time alone with Leah. Dirk stepped out of
Respondent's office.

4. After Dirk left Respondent's office, Respondent stated to
Leah that most divorces resulted from disputes over sex or money and asked her
to explain the reasons that she sought a divorce. Leah advised Respondent that
her husband worked nights and that their physical relationship had suffered as a
result. Leah began to cry, explaining her reasons for dissolving the marriage
and for leaving Dirk.

5. Respondent hugged Leah and drew her in close to his body,
pressing her against his erect genitals. Leah pulled away and Respondent then
grabbed Leah's hand and placed it upon his genitals, over his clothing. Leah
told Respondent to stop and then left Respondent's office.

6. At all times alleged in this complaint, there was a
criminal statute in Illinois, 720 ILCS 5/12-3, which provides, "Battery. (a) A
person commits battery if he intentionally or knowingly without legal
justification and by any means, (1) causes harm to an individual or (2) makes
physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual."

7. On or about March 2, 2000, Respondent filed a Petition for
Dissolution of Marriage in Ogle County, Illinois on behalf of Dirk, captioned
In Re the Marriage of Dirk Miller and Leah Miller, Case No. 00 D 45.

8. Subsequent to March 2, 2000, Respondent again met with
Leah alone in his office. At that time, Respondent made inappropriate comments
to Leah of a sexual nature, remarking to Leah that she would probably be good in
bed because she had a "fiery personality." Respondent again hugged Leah, drawing
her in close to his genitals.

9. In subsequent telephone conversations with Leah,
Respondent frequently made comments of a sexual nature to Leah. Leah repeatedly
attempted to steer their conversations away from Respondent's suggestive
remarks.

10. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent
has engaged in the following misconduct:

representing a client
if the representation of that client may be materially limited by
the lawyer's own interest in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

failing to withdraw
when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that continued
employment will result in violation of these Rules in violation of
Rule 1.16(a)(2) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

breach of fiduciary
duty;

committing a criminal
act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trust
worthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects by violation 720
ILCS 5/13-3 in violation of Rule 8.4 (a)(3) of the Illinois Rules of
Professional conduct;

conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and,

conduct which tends to
defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal
profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT III
(Improper Conduct - Teresa Brevoort)

1. Prior to April 26, 2004, Respondent agreed to represent
Teresa Brevoort ("Brevoort") in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. On or
about April 26, 2004, Respondent filed a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on
behalf of Brevoort in Ogle County, Illinois, captioned In re the
Marriage of Teresa Brevoort and David Brevoort, Case No. 04 D 68.

2. At all times alleged in this complaint, Respondent had a
fiduciary duty to Brevoort which required that he not abuse his position of
authority and trust, and that he place the best interests of his client above
his own self-interests.

3. At all times alleged in this complaint, there were issues
relating to the division of marital property.

4. During the course of Respondent's representation,
Respondent asked Brevoort to explain her reasons for wanting a divorce. Brevoort
advised Respondent that her husband was an alcoholic and that they had not been
intimate in three years. Respondent remarked to Brevoort that if she were his
wife she wouldn't be left alone.

5. Respondent also appeared once at Brevoort's home
uninvited, stating he wished to discuss issues relating to her dissolution.
Brevoort was fearful of Respondent and uncomfortable with the presence of
Respondent at her home. Respondent left when he realized Brevoort's son was at
home at the time.

6. On or about March 16, 2004, Respondent telephoned Brevoort.
Brevoort was in her car with a friend when she received Respondent's telephone
call. Because of Respondent's prior inappropriate sexual conduct, Brevoort
requested that her friend, Linda Wedig, who was present in the car, listen to
Brevoort's conversation with Respondent.

7. In his telephone conversation with Brevoort, Respondent
asked Brevoort to meet him. Brevoort asked Respondent what they needed to meet
about and Respondent replied, "a blow job." Brevoort was shocked, and asked
Respondent whether Respondent had been drinking.

8. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent has
engaged in the following misconduct:

overreaching the
attorney-client relationship;

breach of fiduciary
duty;

representing a client
if the representation of that client may be materially limited by
the lawyer's own interest in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

failing to withdraw
when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that continued
employment will result in violation of these Rules in violation of
Rule 1.16(a)(2) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct: and

conduct which tends to
defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal
profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 770.

COUNT IV
(Improper Conduct - Michelle Johnson)

1. On or about May 1, 2006, Respondent's office, agreed to
represent Michelle Johnson ("Johnson") in a post-decree proceeding, then pending
in Lee County, captioned In re Michelle Johnson v. Todd Johnson, Case No.
97 D 122 and caused an appearance to be filed on her behalf in that matter.

2. Between May 1, 2006 and September 7, 2006, Respondent
represented Johnson in matters relating to a Petition for Contempt, a Petition
to Modify Visitation filed against Johnson and a Petition for Rule to Show Cause
which Johnson filed against her ex-husband, Todd.

3. At all times alleged in this complaint, Respondent had a
fiduciary duty to Johnson which required that he not abuse his position of
authority and trust, and that he place the best interests of his client above
his own self-interests.

4. Throughout the time Respondent represented Johnson,
Respondent made inappropriate and suggestive remarks to Johnson, complimenting
her appearance, remarking that he could not believe her ex-husband ever left
her, discussing the commencement of a sexual relationship, getting "naked"
together, and discussing oral sex. Respondent would call Johnson and engage in
lengthy conversations of this nature, including asking her to join him on a trip
to Springfield so they could have sexual relations. Respondent and Johnson would
engage in touching and fondling including at conference rooms at the courthouse.

5. Although Johnson was attracted to Respondent, she would
often inquire of Respondent whether it was appropriate for them to engage in
these conversations or sexual relations, because he was her attorney. Johnson
also had concerns since Respondent was married.

6. At some time on or about August 26, 2007, Johnson told
Respondent she no longer required his representation. Johnson believed the
relationship was becoming too personal and it was not proper for Respondent to
continue to represent her in her case. On or about that date, Respondent leaned
up against her and rubbed himself against her, touching her thighs and telling
her that she didn't know what she did to him.

7. At no time between, September 7, 2007, the date Respondent
withdrew from representation, and October 9, 2007, did Johnson pay her
outstanding attorneys fees of $1,956.26.

8. On October 9, 2007, Respondent caused a small claims
complaint to be filed against Johnson requesting the balance of his fees be
paid. On or about October 15, 2007, Johnson was served with the small claims
complaint. Between October 15, 2007 and November 14, 2007, Johnson called
Respondent and told him she was surprised by the lawsuit since she had paid him
a retainer of $1600 which she thought covered the time Respondent has spent on
legal work. She reminded Respondent that much of their time was spent discussing
personal matters. Respondent told Johnson he would dismiss the case and she did
not need to attend the first court date of November 14, 2007.

9. As a result of her conversation with Respondent, on
November 14, 2007, Johnson did not appear for the first court date of the small
claims matter. On November 14, 2007, Respondent appeared in court and had a
default judgment in the amount of $1956.26 plus costs in the amount of $188.00
entered against Johnson. At no time did Respondent dismiss the small claims
case.

10. Respondent's statements to Johnson described in paragraph
8 above that he would dismiss the small claims case were false and Respondent
knew they were false because at no time did Respondent dismiss the small claims
case against Johnson nor did he advise Johnson to appear in court to prevent the
entry of a judgment against her.

11. At some time between November 14, 2007 and February 13,
2008, Johnson was served with an alias citation to discover assets. The alias
citation was returnable on February 13, 2008. On February 13, 2008 Johnson
appeared in court pursuant to the alias citation. At that time, Respondent's
firm was represented by an associate attorney, Shane Temple. When the case was
called, Johnson was sworn in by the Judge and advised to proceed to the
conference room to be questioned by Mr. Temple relating to her finances.

12. On February 13, 2008, after Johnson was sworn by the
Judge, Temple and Johnson went into a conference room. At that time, Johnson
advised Temple that she was surprised by the lawsuit, that she believed much of
the time charged by Respondent was for personal time wherein she and "Denny"
discussed the mutual attraction between the two of them as well as the
possibility of oral sex. She advised Temple that Respondent had even invited her
down to Springfield and that she had eventually requested he withdraw from her
case as their relationship was becoming too personal. She also apprised Temple
that the alias citation surprised her because after being served with the small
claims complaint, she contacted Respondent and discussed the matter with him,
and he told her that he would dismiss the complaint so she need not appear for
the first court date.

13. As a result of the conduct set forth above, Respondent
has engaged in the following misconduct:

overreaching the attorney-client
relationship;

breach of fiduciary relationship;

representing a client
if the representation of that client may be materially limited by
the lawyer's own interest in violation of Rule 1.7(b) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

failing to withdraw
when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that continued
employment will result in violation of these Rules in violation of
Rule 1.16(a)(2) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation in violation of Rule
8.4(a)(4) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct;

conduct prejudicial to
the administration of justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the
Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct; and

conduct which tends to
defeat the administration of justice or bring the courts or legal
profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.

WHEREFORE, the Administrator respectfully requests
that this matter be assigned to a panel of the Hearing Board, that a hearing be
held pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753(b), and the Panel make findings of fact,
conclusions of fact and law, and a recommendation of such discipline as is
warranted.